Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/24

Manjit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Jaswant Singh

27 Aug 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

C. C. No. :               24 of 2019

Date of Institution:    24.01.2019

Date of Decision :     27.08.2019

 

1. Manjit Kaur aged abut 23 years widow of Kuldeep Singh now deceased son of Balwinder Singh.
2. Arashdeep Kaur aged about 6 months minor daughter of Kuldeep Singh (now deceased) through her mother Manjit Kaur.
3. Balwinder Singh aged about 62 years son of Major Singh.

All residents of Village Jiwan Wala, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. registered officer Iffco Sadan, C-I, District Centre Saket New Delhi-110017, through its General Director.

....OP

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

         

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Jaswant Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh Satish Kumar Jain, Ld Counsel for OP.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                              cc no. 24 of 2019

                                         Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to make payment of Rs.1,00,000/- on account insurance claim of death of Kuldeep Singh and for further directing OPs to pay compensation for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony besides litigation expenses.

2                               Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that her husband Kuldeep Singh was working as driver in Kuwait with Kuwait Biscuits and Food Products Manufacturing company and he was insured with Opposite Party. It is submitted that on 25.01.2017, when her husband came India, he met with an accident and died on the spot and his post mortem was conducted at Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot. DDR No.16 dated 26.01.2017 was also got recorded to this effect in Police Station Baja Khana. Further submitted that as per terms and conditions of the policy, Kuldeep Singh was insured with OP for personal accident covering death and permanent total disability for Rs. 10 lakhs alongwith some other benefits. Said Insurance policy was renewed by OP in first week of January, 2017 and it was effective till January, 2019. After the death of her husband, complainant lodged claim with OP on 28.04.2017, submitted all requisite documents with OP and also completed all formalities. Vide letter dt 22.05.2017, OP asked complainant to provide attested copies of post-mortem report, DDR, Driving License, Passport and some other documents and complainant duly furnished the same to OP on

cc no. 24 of 2019

30.06.2017, but despite repeated requests, opposite party has not cleared the claim of complainants, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OP and it has caused harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for directions to OP to pay compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the  present complaint.

3                                      The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 30.01.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                    On receipt of the notice, OP filed written statement wherein denied all the other allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant has filed this complaint with ulterior motive to extract money from Company by stating wrong facts and to play fraud upon the court and upon OP. It is averred that policy was valid from 12.01.2015 to 11.01.2017 and it was not further got renewed by insured. Policy in question was expired on 11.01.2017 and accident of Kuldeep Singh occurred on 25.01.2017 in which he died on spot. Claim was repudiated as the policy was not enforceable being not valid on the date of death of Kuldeep Singh and complainant was duly informed that since subject policy was not valid at the time of accident of Kuldeep Singh and therefore, her claim was closed. It is further reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the

cc no. 24 of 2019

part of answering OP as they have rightly repudiated the claim of complainant on account of death of Kuldeep Singh as policy in question expired on 11.01.2017 and Kuldeep Singh died on 25.01.2017 and policy was not valid on that date.

5                                               Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to C-5 and then, closed his evidence.

6                                              In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the ld Counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Neeraj Kumar Jain as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to 4 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                              We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and OP and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents placed on the file.

8                                              From the careful perusal of record and after going through evidence and documents produced on file by complainants as well as OPs, it is observed that case of complainants is that deceased Kuldeep Singh was insured under policy no.30175682 issued on 12.01.2015. Said policy was renewed in first week of January, 2017 and was valid till January, 2019.  Husband of complainant no.1 was working as driver in Kuwait and on 25.01.2017, when he visited India, he met with an accident and died on the spot. DDR to this effect

cc no. 24 of 2019

was also got recorded. Grievance of complainants is that after the death of her husband, they lodged claim with OP and submitted all requisite documents with them, but they have no paid a single penny as insurance claim on account of death of her husband to them, which has caused harassment and mental agony to them. Complainants have prayed for accepting the present complaint. On the other hand plea taken by OP is that insurance policy under which complainants have sought claim on account of death of Kuldeep Singh, was not valid at the time of death of his death. Husband of complainant no.1 was insured with them under policy in question and said policy was valid till 11.01.2017 and thereafter, neither said Kuldeep Singh nor complainants or anybody else on behalf of Kuldeep Singh got renewed the same. Expiry date of said policy was 11.01.2017 but death of Kuldeep Singh took place on 25.01.2017 after the expiry of insurance period when policy in question was not valid, meaning thereby, at the time of death of Kuldeep Singh, he was not covered under policy in question. There is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9                                From the above discussion and in the light of documents produced by OP, we are of considered opinion that there is  no deficiency in service on the part of OP in repudiating the claim of complainants as policy under which they have sought relief of insurance claim had already been expired on 11.01.2017, but death of Kuldeep Singh occurred on 25.01.2017 at the time, when policy in question was not valid. Complainants have failed to place on record any documentary

cc no. 24 of 2019

evidence to prove that policy in question was got renewed.  Hence, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 27.08.2019       

(Param Pal Kaur)           (Ajit Aggarwal)   

Member                         President